XML 39 R31.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.3

Contingencies and commitments | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies and commitments | Note 22. Contingencies and commitments We are parties in a variety of legal actions that routinely arise out of the normal course of business, including legal actions seeking to establish liability directly through insurance contracts or indirectly through reinsurance contracts issued by Berkshire subsidiaries. Plaintiffs occasionally seek punitive or exemplary damages. We do not currently believe that such normal and routine litigation will have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. PacifiCorp, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company (“BHE”), operates as a regulated electric utility in Utah, Oregon, Wyoming and other Western states. HomeServices of America, Inc. (“HomeServices”) is also a wholly-owned subsidiary of BHE. Certain legal matters related to these entities are described below. PacifiCorp In September 2020, a severe weather event with high winds, low humidity and warm temperatures contributed to several major wildfires, which resulted in real and personal property and natural resource damage, personal injuries, loss of life and widespread power outages in Oregon and Northern California. These wildfires spread across certain parts of PacifiCorp’s service territory and surrounding areas across multiple counties in Oregon and California, including Siskiyou County, California; Jackson County, Oregon; Douglas County, Oregon; Marion County, Oregon; Lincoln County, Oregon; and Klamath County, Oregon, burning over 500,000 acres in aggregate and included the Santiam Canyon, Beachie Creek, South Obenchain, Echo Mountain Complex, 242, Archie Creek, Slater and other fires. The Slater fire occurred in both Oregon and California. Third-party reports for these wildfires (the “2020 Wildfires”) indicate over 2,000 structures destroyed, including residences, several other structures damaged, multiple individuals injured, and several fatalities. A significant number of complaints and demands alleging similar claims have been filed in Oregon and California, including a class action complaint in Oregon associated with the 2020 Wildfires for which certain jury verdicts were issued as described below. The plaintiffs seek damages for economic losses, noneconomic losses, including mental suffering, emotional distress, personal injury and loss of life, as well as punitive damages, other damages and attorneys’ fees. Several insurance carriers have filed subrogation complaints in Oregon and California with allegations similar to those made in the aforementioned complaints. Additionally, PacifiCorp received correspondence from the U.S. and Oregon Departments of Justice regarding the potential recovery of certain costs and damages alleged to have occurred on federal and state lands in connection with certain of the 2020 Wildfires. In December 2024, the United States of America filed a complaint against PacifiCorp in conjunction with the correspondence from the U.S. Department of Justice. The civil cover sheet accompanying the complaint demands damages estimated to exceed $900 million. PacifiCorp is actively cooperating with the U.S. and Oregon Departments of Justice on resolving these alleged claims. Amounts sought in outstanding complaints and demands filed in Oregon and in certain demands in California total approximately $55 billion, excluding any doubling or trebling of damages or punitive damages included in the complaints and excluding damages that may be sought by additional plaintiffs granted substitution counsel in the James class action lawsuit described below. Generally, the complaints filed in California do not specify damages sought and are excluded from this amount. Of the $55 billion, $52 billion represents the economic and noneconomic damages sought in the James mass complaints described below. Oregon law provides for doubling of economic and property damages in the event the defendant is found to have acted with gross negligence, recklessness, willfulness or malice. Oregon law provides for trebling of damages associated with timber, shrubs and produce in the event the defendant is determined to have willfully and intentionally trespassed. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Note 22. Contingencies and commitments The 2020 Wildfires and 2022 Wildfire discussed below are referred to as the “Wildfires.” Based on available information to date, losses have been and will likely continue to be incurred associated with the Wildfires. Final determinations of liability will only be made following the completion of comprehensive investigations, which may be or have been performed by various entities, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (“USFS”), the California Public Utilities Commission, the Oregon Department of Forestry (“ODF”) and the Oregon Department of Justice, as well as litigation or similar processes, the outcome of which, if adverse, could, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on PacifiCorp’s financial condition. In May 2022, the USFS issued its report of investigation into the Archie Creek fire concluding that the probable cause of the fire was power lines owned and operated by PacifiCorp. The USFS report for the Achie Creek fire also states that evidence indicates failure of power line infrastructure. The USFS report of investigation into the Slater fire for the investigation period from October 5, 2020 to December 8, 2020 concluded that the fire was caused by a downed power line owned and operated by PacifiCorp. The USFS report for the Slater fire also states that evidence indicates a tree fell onto the power line and that wind blew over the 137-foot tree with internal rot that showed no outward signs of distress and would not have been classified or identified as a hazard tree. Settlements have been reached with substantially all individual plaintiffs, timber companies and insurance subrogation plaintiffs in both the Archie Creek and Slater fires, with government timber and suppression cost claims remaining. Additionally, settlements have been reached for all wrongful death claims associated with the 2020 Wildfires. In April 2023, the USFS issued its report of investigation into a wildland fire that began in the Opal Creek wilderness outside of the Santiam Canyon that was first reported on August 16, 2020 (“Beachie Creek Fire”), approximately three weeks prior to the September 2020 wind event described above. In March 2025, PacifiCorp received the ODF’s final investigation report on the Santiam Canyon fires (“ODF’s Report”), which concluded that embers from the pre-existing Beachie Creek Fire caused 12 fires within the Santiam Canyon. The ODF’s Report also found that PacifiCorp’s power lines did not contribute to the overall spread of fire into the Santiam Canyon, even though its power lines ignited seven spot fires within the Santiam Canyon that were each suppressed. The Beachie Creek fire that spread into the Santiam Canyon burned approximately 193,000 acres; the South Obenchain fire burned approximately 33,000 acres; the Echo Mountain Complex fire burned approximately 3,000 acres; and the 242 fire burned approximately 14,000 acres. The James cases described below are associated with the Beachie Creek (Santiam Canyon), South Obenchain, Echo Mountain Complex and 242 fires, which were four distinct fires located hundreds of miles apart. The James Case On September 30, 2020, a class action complaint against PacifiCorp was filed captioned Jeanyne James et al. v. PacifiCorp et al. (“James”), in Oregon Circuit Court in Multnomah County, Oregon (the “Multnomah Court”) in connection with the 2020 Wildfires. In November 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to limit the class to include Oregon citizens allegedly impacted by the Santiam Canyon, Echo Mountain Complex, South Obenchain and 242 fires, as well as to add claims for noneconomic damages. The amended complaint alleged that PacifiCorp’s assets contributed to the Oregon wildfires occurring on or after September 7, 2020, and that PacifiCorp acted with gross negligence, among other things, seeking damages not less than $600 million of economic damages and in excess of $1 billion of noneconomic damages for the plaintiffs and the class. Since filing of the original class action complaint, numerous James class members have been named and damages specified in various complaints as described below. Additionally, numerous cases were consolidated into the original James complaint. As of October 2025, various separate mass complaints against PacifiCorp naming approximately 1,700 individual class members have been filed referencing the James case as the lead case. These James case mass complaints make damages-only allegations with substantially all plaintiffs individually seeking $5 million of economic damages, $25 million of noneconomic damages and punitive damages equal to 0.25 times the amount of economic and noneconomic damages, as well as doubling of economic damages. An additional 1,500 plaintiffs have been granted the ability to not be represented by James lead counsel. A small portion of these additional plaintiffs have filed complaints seeking damages similar to those in the mass complaints. PacifiCorp expects additional complaints will be filed for these plaintiffs, including for the portion that are scheduled for trial under the July 2025 case management order described below. PacifiCorp believes the magnitude of damages sought by the class members in the James case mass complaints to be of remote likelihood of being awarded based on the amounts awarded in the jury verdicts described below that are being appealed. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Note 22. Contingencies and commitments James trial activity In June 2023, a jury verdict was issued in the first James trial finding PacifiCorp’s conduct grossly negligent, reckless and willful as to each of the 17 named plaintiffs and the entire class. The jury awarded economic and noneconomic damages. After the jury verdict, the Multnomah Court doubled the economic damages, in accordance with Oregon law, and added punitive damages by applying a 0.25 multiplier to the awarded economic and noneconomic damages. PacifiCorp filed a motion with the Multnomah Court requesting the court offset the damage awards by deducting insurance proceeds received by any of the plaintiffs. Net damages awarded to the 17 plaintiffs were $92 million. In January 2024, PacifiCorp filed a notice of appeal associated with the June 2023 verdict, including whether the case can proceed as a class action. Subsequent to the June 2023 James verdict, numerous damages phase trials were held with separate jury verdicts issued and damages awarded for each on a basis consistent with the initial trial and relying on liability determination in the June 2023 James verdict. Aggregate net damages awarded in the subsequent trials, including estimates for additional damages expected to be awarded by the Multnomah Court for certain of these trials consistent with other awards are $497 million. PacifiCorp amended its January 2024 appeal of the June 2023 James verdict to include the jury verdicts for the first two damages phase trials. PacifiCorp has filed notices of appeal for the subsequent jury verdicts in the damages phase trials once the limited judgments are entered and any post-trial motions are filed. The appeals process and further actions could take several years. For each limited judgment entered in the court, PacifiCorp has posted or expects to post a supersedeas bond, which stays any effort to seek payment of the judgments pending final resolution of any appeals. Under Oregon Revised Statutes 82.010, interest at a rate of 9% per annum will accrue on the judgments commencing at the date the judgments were entered until the entire money award is paid, amended or reversed by an appellate court. James court activity In April 2025, PacifiCorp filed its opening brief with the Oregon Court of Appeals in connection with its appeal of the June 2023 James verdict and the January and March 2024 verdicts for the first two James damages phase trials. In the opening brief, PacifiCorp addressed numerous procedural and legal issues, including that the class certification is improper due to the plaintiffs being impacted by distinct fires with independent ignition points that were hundreds of miles apart; awarding of noneconomic damages is not allowed under Oregon law; plaintiffs failed to prove that PacifiCorp caused harm to every class member; and jury instructions applied incorrect legal standards in assessing class-wide evidence and individual claims. Additionally, PacifiCorp incorporated the ODF’s Report into its opening appellate brief. Various parties who are not party to the James case have filed supportive amicus briefs with the court. The plaintiffs filed their combined answering and cross-appeal with the Oregon Court of Appeals on August 21, 2025. PacifiCorp filed its combined reply brief and cross-appeal answering brief on October 17, 2025. Plaintiffs’ reply brief is due on November 7, 2025, unless the plaintiffs request and are granted additional extensions of time to file their reply brief. On October 23, 2025, PacifiCorp filed a request with the Oregon Court of Appeals for an expedited oral argument, which, if granted, will facilitate a more prompt decision from the court. Subsequent to the first two damages phase trials, nine additional damages trials were scheduled to be held in 2025 under the Multnomah Court’s October 2024 case management order. In March 2025, in consideration of the ODF’s Report, PacifiCorp filed a motion to stay the remaining James damages phase trials under the 2024 October case management order. The motion was heard by the court and was denied in April 2025. The remaining damages phase trial ordered under the 2024 October case management order is scheduled to begin December 1, 2025. On July 28, 2025, the Multnomah Court issued Case Management Order No. 11 (“CMO No. 11”), which proposes to schedule dozens of trials in 2026 and over 100 more in 2027 and 2028, involving approximately 2,000 plaintiffs. Each trial is subject to and dependent on judicial resources and availability, which is expected to be determined six weeks before each trial. The CMO No. 11 proposed schedule is likely to put significant strain on the Multnomah Court system and PacifiCorp believes this may challenge the Multnomah Court’s ability to fulfill the trial schedule put forth in CMO No. 11. Additionally, CMO No. 11 requires mediation every other month starting in October 2025. In August 2025, PacifiCorp filed a motion with the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon (“Oregon Court of Appeals”) to stay the James damages trials addressed in CMO No. 11. In September 2025, the Appellate Commissioner of the Oregon Court of Appeals denied the motion to stay. On September 26, 2025, PacifiCorp filed a request for reconsideration of the stay denial with the Chief Judge of the Oregon Court of Appeals, which was denied on October 13, 2025. PacifiCorp has 35 days from October 13, 2025 to petition the Oregon Supreme Court to review the Oregon Court of Appeals decision. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Note 22. Contingencies and commitments 2022 Wildfire According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, a wildfire began on July 29, 2022, in the Oak Knoll Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest in Siskiyou County, California located in PacifiCorp’s service territory (the “2022 Wildfire”) burning over 60,000 acres. Third-party reports indicate that the 2022 Wildfire resulted in 11 structures damaged, 185 structures destroyed, 12 injuries and four fatalities. The USFS issued a Wildland Fire Origin and Cause Supplemental Incident Report. The report concluded that a tree coming in contact with a power line is the probable cause of the 2022 Wildfire. Settlements have been reached with substantially all individual plaintiffs, timber companies and insurance subrogation plaintiffs in the 2022 Wildfire with government timber and suppression cost claims remaining. Additionally, all wrongful death claims have been settled or settled in principle associated with the 2022 Wildfire. Wildfire loss information A provision for a loss contingency is recorded when it is probable a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. PacifiCorp evaluates the related range of reasonably estimated losses and records a loss based on its best estimate within that range or the lower end of the range if there is no better estimate. Estimated probable losses associated with the Wildfires were based on the information available to the date of this filing, including (i) ongoing cause and origin investigations; (ii) ongoing settlement and mediation activities; (iii) other litigation matters and upcoming legal proceedings; and (iv) the status of the James case. Estimated losses on the Wildfires include estimates for fire suppression costs, real and personal property damages, natural resource damages and noneconomic damages such as personal injury damages and loss of life damages that are considered probable of being incurred and reasonably estimable at this time, and which is subject to change as additional relevant information becomes available. Through September 30, 2025, PacifiCorp recorded cumulative estimated probable Wildfire losses, before taxes and expected related insurance recoveries, of approximately $2.85 billion, of which approximately $1.4 billion has been paid in connection with settlements. Wildfire loss accruals recorded in the third quarter and first nine months of 2025 were $100 million compared to $251 million in the first nine months of 2024. Estimated unpaid liabilities were approximately $1.45 billion at September 30, 2025. Insurance recoveries received to date were $530 million, which were recorded prior to 2024. No further insurance recoveries are expected to become available. It is reasonably possible PacifiCorp will incur significant additional losses beyond the amounts currently accrued; however, we are currently unable to reasonably estimate the range of possible additional losses that could be incurred due to the number of properties and parties involved, including claimants in the class to the James case and the 2022 Wildfire, the variation in the types of properties and damages and the ultimate outcome of legal actions, including mediation, settlement negotiations, jury verdicts and the appeals process. HomeServices of America, Inc. HomeServices is currently defending against several antitrust cases, all in federal district courts. In each case, plaintiffs claim HomeServices and certain of its subsidiaries (and in one case, BHE) conspired with co-defendants to artificially inflate real estate commissions by following and enforcing multiple listing service (“MLS”) rules that require listing agents to offer a commission split to cooperating agents in order for the property to appear on the MLS (“Cooperative Compensation Rule”). None of the complaints specify damages sought. However, two cases also allege Texas state law deceptive trade practices claims, for which plaintiffs have asserted damages totaling approximately $9 billion by separate written notice as required by Texas law. In one of these cases, Burnett (formerly Sitzer) et al. v. HomeServices of America, Inc. et al. (the “Burnett case”), a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (“U.S. District Court”) returned a verdict for the plaintiffs on October 31, 2023, finding that the named defendants participated in a conspiracy to follow and enforce the Cooperative Compensation Rule, which conspiracy had the purpose or effect of raising, inflating, or stabilizing broker commission rates paid by home sellers. The jury further found that the class plaintiffs had proved damages of $1.8 billion. Joint and several liability applies for the co-defendants. Federal law authorizes trebling of damages and the award of pre-judgment interest and attorney fees. To date, all defendants have reached settlements with the plaintiffs. The U.S. District Court approved these settlements in May and November 2024. The U.S. District Court entered a final judgment on the HomeServices settlement on January 15, 2025. All settlements have been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The initial briefing on all appeals was filed on April 21, 2025 and response briefs were filed on July 21, 2025. Reply briefs are due November 19, 2025. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Note 22. Contingencies and commitments The final HomeServices settlement agreement reached with the plaintiffs in April 2024 settles all claims asserted against HomeServices and certain of its subsidiaries in the Burnett case and effectuates a nationwide class settlement. The final settlement agreement includes scheduled payments over four years aggregating $250 million. HomeServices has made payments in escrow of $67 million through September 30, 2025. If the settlement is not affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, HomeServices intends to vigorously appeal on multiple grounds the jury’s findings and damage award in the Burnett case, including whether the case can proceed as a class action. The appeals process and further actions could take several years. Other legal matters In September 2024, National Indemnity Company (“NICO”) entered into a settlement agreement concerning certain non-insurance affiliates that filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Court”) in 2023. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, NICO agreed to pay $535 million to the bankruptcy estate in consideration of a release of all estate causes of action against NICO and its affiliates. In connection with the settlement agreement, NICO recorded a pre-tax charge of $490 million in September 2024, which is net of $45 million from a third party that was covered under the release. The Court’s approval of the settlement agreement over the objections of certain creditors is pending, as are appeals by certain creditors of prior rulings in favor of the bankruptcy estate. Berkshire and certain of its subsidiaries are also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert or may assert claims or seek to impose fines and penalties. We currently believe that liabilities that may arise as a result of such other pending legal actions will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Commitments On October 2, 2025, Berkshire announced it entered into a definitive agreement to acquire the chemicals business (“OxyChem”) from Occidental Petroleum Corporation (“Occidental”) for cash consideration of $9.7 billion, subject to customary purchase price adjustments. Occidental will retain OxyChem’s legacy environmental liabilities. OxyChem is a global manufacturer of commodity chemicals, with applications in water treatment, pharmaceuticals, healthcare and commercial and residential development. The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2025, subject to regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. In January 2024, we acquired the remaining noncontrolling interests in Pilot for $2.6 billion. On September 30, 2024, BHE repurchased 5.85% of its outstanding common stock held by certain noncontrolling BHE shareholders for $2.9 billion. In September and October 2024, Berkshire acquired the remaining 2.12% of BHE’s outstanding common stock held by noncontrolling shareholders in exchange for 2,291,631 shares of Berkshire Class B common stock valued at $1.045 billion. The acquisitions of these noncontrolling interests represented equity transactions. We recorded the differences between the consideration paid and the carrying values of the noncontrolling interests, net of deferred income tax liabilities, if applicable, to capital in excess of par value.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration